[Data Characterisation]: Spatial domain models comparison

[Alberto Micol]

>
>
>Alberto -
>
>I have been working on a new version of my attempt at a uniform model which
>folds in sampling information.  This is based mainly on Pat's CVO model.
>I will try to incorporate your stuff as well before I post the next version
>(which should be soon!). 
>
Waiting for it!

> Pat is actually the one responsible for pulling
>all this together for the final data model.  We have been hoping to use
>this in SSA but at this point this is doubtful for the prototype due out
>in December.  I don't see how we can develop all the desired infrastructure
>in time.  If not, we can include it in the next versions.
>
>The revised strategy is to replace the "bandpass" data model with a
>more general "sampling" data model which includes the bandpass information
>as the sampling range
>
Indeed I like much better the "sampling" than the "bandpass".

Aside comment, all you are saying here is new to me, since it was not 
circulated
on this mailing list. I understand that the NVO has other communication 
channels,
but I would think that NVO decisions which are going to affect the IVOA DM
should also be posted here. Can that be arranged ?

>  Dataset ID and spatial (sky) coverage information
>are also included.  The intention is to include anything which is an
>attribute of a generic dataset.  Subclasses such as image and spectrum
>add additional information.
>
>The hard thing is to decide what to leave out because it is already going
>to be addressed elsewhere (the same thing goes for e.g., quantity).
>
>	- Doug
>
Pat gave me his comments on the spatial characterisation comparison page,
which I updated accordingly:

http://archive.eso.org/~amicol/VO/DM/coverage/spatial_comparison.html


Alberto